The dissolution of the Union

[InsaneApache]

It looks as though Scotland will vote for independence and secede from the UK.


A majority of voters in both England and Scotland back the break-up of the United Kingdom, a poll has suggested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6185652.stm

Good. I'm all for it. At last we (English) will have to be recognised as a nation, also no more English subsidies for our friends in the north.

Another interesting side effect will be no more Labour governments in England, their power base is after all north of the border. Oh....one more bonus. Mr 'grumpy' Brown, our pickpocketing Chancellor will have to bugger off back to Scotland (I would revoke his visa myself if I could :yes: ) and therefore would not be able to become the next Prime Minister.

So is it a good thing or bad thing?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, we need their cotton so I guess we'll be backing Scotland in the war.

[scotchedpommes]

Good. I'm all for it. At last we (English) will have to be recognised as a nation, also no more English subsidies for our friends in the north.

Another interesting side effect will be no more Labour governments in England, their power base is after all north of the border. Oh....one more bonus. Mr 'grumpy' Brown, our pickpocketing Chancellor will have to bugger off back to Scotland (I would revoke his visa myself if I could :yes: ) and therefore would not be able to become the next Prime Minister.

So is it a good thing or bad thing?

Ah, feeling the love. I wouldn't treat those polls as definitive, and although it's
been clear that Labour's been going all out to try and visibly talk down the
Nationalist cause at the conference recently I'm not sure they'll have so much
to panic about.

That said, I'm undecided as yet. On the trivial side, it would be vaguely satisfying
to finally be done with the Tories, at least in their current form, and certainly
put an end to Malcolm's cause. What would you bang on about without Labour
though? Gasp.

[InsaneApache]

What would you bang on about without Labour
though? Gasp.

The Lib-Dems. :whip:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'm not too bothered either way. We'll both be part of the EU, so people will be able to move freely between the countries and work wherever they want, so if the Scots want to go to all of the trouble of setting up their own currency, government agencies, all the other country stuff, as well as losing their sizeable English subsidies, then so be it. Of course, if they wanted to stay I'd be equally happy that way.

[KukriKhan]

Would this be a "domino effect" thingee? First Scotland, then Wales, then N.I.? Or would Scotland claim stewardship over N.I. ?

How do the Royals figure into this equation? Isn't it a "unified" crown? Or was that just a parliament-passed law?

To follow Sasaki Kojiro's idea: which of the four (Eng, Scot, Wales, NI) has more oil?

[Pannonian]

Would this be a "domino effect" thingee? First Scotland, then Wales, then N.I.? Or would Scotland claim stewardship over N.I. ?

How do the Royals figure into this equation? Isn't it a "unified" crown? Or was that just a parliament-passed law?

To follow Sasaki Kojiro's idea: which of the four (Eng, Scot, Wales, NI) has more oil?
England has the most MPs, who represent more grease than the North Sea could ever produce. That said, I've heard reports that the politicians north of the border are even more useless than those in Westminster.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Heh, there is no way Wales would ever become independant of England. We have no economy to speak of.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Heh, there is no way Wales would ever become independant of England. We have no economy to speak of.

Historically, that little practicality thing has rarely stood in the way of a good separatist movement -- only gets in the way once you realize you now have a country to run.

[ezrider]

Without government money Northern Ireland would have 50% unemployment. A lot of people work for the council, the DOE, the civil service or another government backed inst.

I wonder what the loyalist will make of this:

A majority of voters in both England and Scotland back the break-up of the United Kingdom, a poll has suggested.

England: "we don't want you anymore, piss off you paddy ********!"
The loyalists: "We can't hear you, *covers ears* lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala", "God save our gracious Queen ....."
identity melt down in 10, 9, 8 ..... Boooooom!

[Grey_Fox]

If Scotland seccedes from the Union all it will do is prove is that the majority of voters are morons. Scotland has gained more from the Union than any other nation. It was the driving force behind English expansion in the 18th and 19th centuries, just look at the number of Scots in parliament and on the boards of the East and West India Companies. It has not much of an economy and it shows when the biggest employer is the civil service. That's what happens when school history courses are changed.

[spmetla]

So you guys would be getting rid of St. Andrews cross in the Union Jack then, correct?

[scotchedpommes]

Oh, let's deal with the important issues, yes.

[drone]

FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM!!!!!!










:bounce:

[Mikeus Caesar]

Muppets.

Let them secede from us. They'll be begging to rejoin after a few years, when the country is limping along and on the brink of bankruptcy.

Scottish don't know how well they've had it in the Union. They'll only realise once they leave, i suppose.

[King Henry V]

It would be very nice to be free of all those unintelligeable Labour politicians. However, I think we have far too much shared history that I think it would be a shame for a complete dissolution of the United Kingdom. I think the best solution would be like that modelled on Austria-Hungary: common defence, foreign and customs policy, but with otherwise complete internal independence for Scotland and England (Wales can remain England's bitch:whip: ) and a personal union between the two countries represented by the monarch.

[Templar Knight]

What will happen to the armed forces? The SAS is made of 65-75% Scots

[BDC]

What will happen to the armed forces? The SAS is made of 65-75% Scots
England has always employed foreigners...

When the oil money runs out, Scots-guard money will play a big role in the Scottish economy. :)

They can be like Gurkhas. Get the most dangerous jobs and a crappy pension.

[GoreBag]

How do the Royals figure into this equation? Isn't it a "unified" crown? Or was that just a parliament-passed law?

It was unified, but ceased to be before the Acts of Union. I doubt that a newly 'indepedent' Scotland would bother with a monarchy after separation.

Anyway, Scotland, go for it. Better late than never.

[Duke Malcolm]

So you guys would be getting rid of St. Andrews cross in the Union Jack then, correct?

Assuming there remained a King/Queen of Great Britain, the Union Jack would remain. Failing that, the Union Jack would cease to be.

I am split over the matter. The only way Scotland could do well after the Union is if it adopted a small government with a free market, Adam Smith style. Unfortunately, the majority of parties would rather see a furthering of the People's Glorious and Free Republic of Scotland. For which we certainly have not got the money, let alone could we afford this £100 billion well of money proposed by the SNP from oil revenues.

And Heaven Forfend Scotland ends up a republic. No doubt the Party would like that ("Oah yes, all the Queen's dosh into Scottish coffers"). Of course, the only thing that would come to Scotland thereafter would be the Palace of Holyroodhouse while the Balmoral Estate would remain the private property of Her Majesty the Queen (of England and Her Other Realms and Territories).

As for the matter of the shared history of Scotland and England, that is the whole reason behind this apparent rise in nationalism. It is history. The Empire died in the past 60 years. It was once a shared child of this Island, providing a common struggle for it. Now it is no longer. People have no reason to stay. And since democracy is all the rage now, what People want People get...

[Aenlic]

Interesting that none of you have speculated on the issue of who would get to keep the North Sea oil? It seems to be a little arrogant to just assume that England would get to keep the rigs and production facilities, hmmm? I think that this single issue alone is enough to keep Scotland and England united. Neither one can afford to do without the oil. :wink:

[Duke Malcolm]

Interesting that none of you have speculated on the issue of who would get to keep the North Sea oil? It seems to be a little arrogant to just assume that England would get to keep the rigs and production facilities, hmmm? I think that this single issue alone is enough to keep Scotland and England united. Neither one can afford to do without the oil. :wink:
Scotland would get the oil, it is on Scottish territorial waters, methinks. The companies would keep the rigs.

[King Henry V]

Interesting that none of you have speculated on the issue of who would get to keep the North Sea oil? It seems to be a little arrogant to just assume that England would get to keep the rigs and production facilities, hmmm? I think that this single issue alone is enough to keep Scotland and England united. Neither one can afford to do without the oil. :wink:
Well the oil is running out you know....

[Louis VI the Fat]

No! This would spell the end of the UK and leave Europe a weak and divided Britain! We must not cater to seccesionist illusions and halt this development at once and...

*ponders*




...UK...weak...divided...
:thinking2:




:beam:





:yes:

[Kralizec]

Would a seperated Scotland continue as a member of the Commonwealth? How republican are the Scots generally?

Also, can someone fill me in on the whole "devolution" thing? As I understand it, Scots have a parliament exclusively for themselves (and similar things planned for the Welsh and N.Irish) while the English don't as they have to share parliament with the Scots? :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

Scotland would get the oil, it is on Scottish territorial waters, methinks. The companies would keep the rigs.

Ok Malcolm two things.

It's the Union Flag, not the Union Jack. You of all should know better.

As for the oil thingy.....a little re-drawing of the international maritime boundaries......

As if we'd let the Scots keep all that money....this is Blair after all....:wall:

[Duke Malcolm]

Would a seperated Scotland continue as a member of the Commonwealth? How republican are the Scots generally?

I do not know. It would certainly be a member of the Commonwealth, just as England would be. I don't know about the Monarchy. Many see them as the "English" Royal Family, and might be done away with after the Union. I don't think that there are many who are specifically republican and would prefer an elected president, but we can hardly offer the throne to the Duke of Bavaria...

[Vladimir]

I think the best solution would be like that modelled on Austria-Hungary: common defence, foreign and customs policy, but with otherwise complete internal independence for Scotland and England (Wales can remain England's bitch:whip: ) and a personal union between the two countries represented by the monarch.

I think that's called a civil union in the US, as apposed to marriage of course :flowers: .

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'm not sure the oil is too big a factor. Even with it taken into account, there is still a net flow of money out of London and the South East towards Scotland.

The split would be financially beneficial for England. Not that that means it's a good idea, of course. Perhaps proper federalism would satisfy both parties?

[King Henry V]

I guess they could always invite over a real Scot to become King of Scotland:
Franz, Duke of Bavaria, heir of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

[Pannonian]

I guess they could always invite over a real Scot to become King of Scotland:
Franz, Duke of Bavaria, heir of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Presumably when he takes his seat on the Stone of Scone he'll rename himself Fran.

[InsaneApache]

Sorry the Act of Settlement forbids it. :whip:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Also, can someone fill me in on the whole "devolution" thing? As I understand it, Scots have a parliament exclusively for themselves (and similar things planned for the Welsh and N.Irish) while the English don't as they have to share parliament with the Scots? :inquisitive:

Devolution is the assignment of powers to a lower level of government. There are different powers seceded to the Scottish Parliament than to those of Wales and Northern Ireland. (Note that the N.I. Assembly is currently suspended and on life support). This is reflected in the names - The Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament. The latter has tax raising powers, for example (which make it rather powerful) whereas the former does not, making the Welsh Assembly little more than an expensive talking shop of the order of an English County Council.

The anomaly to all this is that the British Parliament at Westminster is still a government of the whole island. It sets foreign policy for Scotland for example, but not education policy. England does not have an equivalent of the Scottish Parliament for its own territory (although there are a couple of Regional Assemblies - see description of the Welsh Assembly for uselessness).

Because the members of the Westminster Parliament are elected from across the whole country, this leads to what is known as the West Lothian question. The Member for West Lothian (in Scotland) may vote on matters that affect the people of England, but those English voters have no equivalent representation on Scottish matters.

As IA noted, New Labour is largely made up of Scottish MPs as historically Scotland has been left-leaning. Devolution allows them to have an in-built majority in Scotland, and retain the power of that lobby in Westminster.

If Scotland becomes independent, the resolution of the West Lothian question will be the ejection of all MPs with a Scottish constituency - they will have to stand for the Independent Scottish Parliament. New Labour will suffer greviously in that scenario. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland at all (or maybe they got one last time) would be unaffected and likely to have the in-built permanent majority in England and Wales that Labour would enjoy in Scotland.

Except the Scottish Nationalists would probably eclipse Labour there too.

Gordon Brown would not be eligible to be Prime Minister of England and Wales, unless he moved and stood for election in an English constituency.



I do not know. It would certainly be a member of the Commonwealth, just as England would be.

Not necessarily. The Republic of Ireland declined to be a member of the Commonwealth after independence.

[BDC]

If Scotland gets independence, then we may as well go the whole distance and split up into the old pre-England kingdoms.

Whoever gets the City will be very happy. Everyone else less so.

[King Henry V]

Sorry the Act of Settlement forbids it. :whip:
But surely such a racist/chavinistic/imperialist/nazi act can not be allowed in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society as our own, can it? It's against the European Covention of Human Rights!


If Scotland gets independence, then we may as well go the whole distance and split up into the old pre-England kingdoms.

Whoever gets the City will be very happy. Everyone else less so.
Wessex! Yarrrrr!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Wyvern.png

[scotchedpommes]

I'm not sure the oil is too big a factor. Even with it taken into account, there is still a net flow of money out of London and the South East towards Scotland.

The split would be financially beneficial for England. Not that that means it's a good idea, of course. Perhaps proper federalism would satisfy both parties?

Given that it was the oil that sparked Nationalism before now and that they're
still talking about taking the benefit from it, I think they might still see it as a
major factor.

As far as federalism is concerned, I very much doubt that it would be accepted
up here, as they've said that nothing short of full independence would be an
objective. The idea of staying part of the Commonwealth given that fact also
seems absurd. Connection to the monarchy [including that in Bavaria] should
dissolve completely.


If Scotland becomes independent, the resolution of the West Lothian question will be the ejection of all MPs with a Scottish constituency - they will have to stand for the Independent Scottish Parliament. New Labour will suffer greviously in that scenario. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland at all (or maybe they got one last time) would be unaffected and likely to have the in-built permanent majority in England and Wales that Labour would enjoy in Scotland.

Except the Scottish Nationalists would probably eclipse Labour there too.

Cue the conference panic and backlash speeches.

The Tories gained a single seat, as far as I am aware - and no doubt as Malcolm would mention, they probably have control of a fair few insignificant positions around the country.

I'd venture that neither party [Labour or SNP] is sure which way a vote would go, and that's why we'll be seeing pushes from both sides. Whether or not polls seem to indicate that a majority would vote for independence, I would imagine regional variation is considerable. Whenever the local news programmes conduct their 'man on the street' style questioning, a majority seem to be in favour of the status quo, if not entirely apathetic. That said, the demographic never seems to be that varied. I personally find it hard to see the SNP winning the election, and so all this talk about polls is rather pointless. All it does is give IA and co. a chance to have a whine.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Wessex! Yarrrrr!

Given the current Earl of Wessex, the prospect of independence might pall somewhat.

:wink3:

[Pannonian]

The anomaly to all this is that the British Parliament at Westminster is still a government of the whole island. It sets foreign policy for Scotland for example, but not education policy. England does not have an equivalent of the Scottish Parliament for its own territory (although there are a couple of Regional Assemblies - see description of the Welsh Assembly for uselessness).

The north east turned down a regional assembly because they didn't want another level of government wasting their tax money. Devolution of the regions is rather unpopular for this reason.

[InsaneApache]

All it does is give IA and co. a chance to have a whine.

No whining here :laugh4: I think it's a good idea that Scotland bankrupts rules itself.

Did I mention that I lived in bonnie Scotland for a few years when I was a kid? So no rose tinted spectacles either when it comes to the racism a lot of the Scots have towards the English. :idea2:

[therother]

As IA noted, New Labour is largely made up of Scottish MPs as historically Scotland has been left-leaning.41 of 356 New Labour MPs were from Scottish seats at the last election.


New Labour will suffer greviously in that scenario. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland at all (or maybe they got one last time) would be unaffected and likely to have the in-built permanent majority in England and Wales that Labour would enjoy in Scotland. New Labour would still have a majority in the remainder of the UK if the Scottish MPs were excluded. Labour had 356 seats in total at the last election, so they would have had 315 without Scotland. The new threshold for overall majority, substracting the 59 Scottish seats, would be 294.

[scotchedpommes]

Did I mention that I lived in bonnie Scotland for a few years when I was a kid? So no rose tinted spectacles either when it comes to the racism a lot of the Scots have towards the English. :idea2:

And no tarring the rest of us with the same brush either, eh?

[ZombieFriedNuts]

I hear that if Scotland leaves they will become a 3’rd world country overnight

[Duke Malcolm]

I hear that if Scotland leaves they will become a 3’rd world country overnight

Evidently you have not been to Scotland recently...

Banquo- The Scottish Parliament does not have tax-raising powers, and the SNP have stated that they would remain in the Commonwealth.


Sorry the Act of Settlement forbids it.
That does not apply to Scotland, since it was passed by England in 1701, before the Act of Union. However, Article 2 of the Treaty of the Act of Union effectively enshrines it in Scots Law. If the Act of Union was repealed, then it would no longer be applicable.

[InsaneApache]

And no tarring the rest of us with the same brush either, eh?

Not at all. I made some very good friends in Ardrossan, probably more enlightened than most. However even these guys hated teh English...just not this particular one. :smug:


Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Did I mention that I lived in bonnie Scotland for a few years when I was a kid? So no rose tinted spectacles either when it comes to the racism a lot of the Scots have towards the English.

I never said all...but there is a majority with this victim mindset......I take it you're a Scotchman then? :clown:

NB: I just ran this through the spellchecker and it accepted Scotchman....:wall:

[Louis VI the Fat]

NB: I just ran this through the spellchecker and it accepted Scotchman....:wall:Thats weird! When i run my post's true the brilliant spellczech none mistake are left. :beam:

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is interesting.

Personally, I'd prefer an Britain without the labour party, and if this did it, well why not if the people support it? And the labor party's dominance of Scotland, and subsequent economic 'slowdown' might force them to rethink the glory of high taxes and regulations galore.

I think Scotland could have a decent economy, but they'd have to go the Milton Friedman route - low taxes and free trade, ala Ireland and Estonia.

Crazed Rabbit

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo- The Scottish Parliament does not have tax-raising powers, and the SNP have stated that they would remain in the Commonwealth.

Does it not? Then I stand corrected. Is it tax-spending then? They certainly appear to have substantial differences in spending powers.

:confused:

[InsaneApache]

Does it not? Then I stand corrected. Is it tax-spending then? They certainly appear to have substantial differences in spending powers.

:confused:

They do indeed.

[caravel]

Independence may be the catalyst to poducing a decent Scottish economy. As things stand, where is the incentive?

[IrishArmenian]

What about the Welsh and the Ulstermen? BKS, could you give us the thoughts of the average Welshman on indpedence? From what I read, most of the Welsh despise being part of the UK, but the oly Ulsterman I know says he is "British and Proud."
EDIT: By the way, just so everyone is clear, the U.K. has never been the land of Peace, Love and Understanding (Sorry McManus, I mean Costello). Everyone hates everyone else. Everyone has their own football except for the Welsh, who have to deal with having most of their international squad play for the English Clubs (I will catch a lot heat for this but, I like how Craig Bellamy plays, very intense, always aware* dodges bottle thrown by drunken English man*)
So, in conclusion, in the U.K., everyone hates everybody else!

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

What about the Welsh and the Ulstermen? BKS, could you give us the thoughts of the average Welshman on indpedence? From what I read, most of the Welsh despise being part of the UK,

I have never met any Welshman who has complained about being part of the UK. They are well aware that we don't have a sustainable economy, and that independance from the UK would ruin us.

Bear in mind, however, that I'm from the south, which is far more cosmopolitan. If you did a survey in the valleys, I'm sure that you'd find far more people who desired independance-most of this kind of sentiment is rooted in the Conservatives shutting the coal mines in the eighties.

[KukriKhan]

... Bear in mind, however, that I'm from the south, which is far more cosmopolitan. If you did a survey in the valleys, I'm sure that you'd find far more people who desired independance-most of this kind of sentiment is rooted in the Conservatives shutting the coal mines in the eighties.

"All Politics is Local". Thus spake Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, longtime Speaker of the US House of Reps. I'm continuously amazed that in a country with less land mass and population than California, such diversity of opinion and outlook can exist (and co-exist, for that matter).

Does such distain for England and the English actually rise to the level of racial hatred among non-English citizens, as InsaneApache suggests? My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry. And I thought the addition of former colonists (Pakistanis, Indians, etc) as immigrants would just make the rivalry more diverse (kind of like our NFL 'expansion teams').

Should I re-think that relationship?

[GoreBag]

It varies from person to person, obviously, but it's not uncommon for there to be anglophobes in the other regions of the UK.

[InsaneApache]

"All Politics is Local". Thus spake Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, longtime Speaker of the US House of Reps. I'm continuously amazed that in a country with less land mass and population than California, such diversity of opinion and outlook can exist (and co-exist, for that matter).

Does such distain for England and the English actually rise to the level of racial hatred among non-English citizens, as InsaneApache suggests? My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry. And I thought the addition of former colonists (Pakistanis, Indians, etc) as immigrants would just make the rivalry more diverse (kind of like our NFL 'expansion teams').

Should I re-think that relationship?

When my fathers wife initially arrived in the UK from the USA she too was amazed at the diversity. You can drive for 10-15 minutes in any direction and hear the difference in accents alone. She was fascinated with the Welsh and the Scots accents, often saying she could hear how the Mid-Atlantic accent came about. She's lived in Washington DC, New York and latterly Jacksonville (home to King Edward cigars :wink3: ) and told me that you could literally drive for hundreds of miles in the USA and not hear an appreciable difference in accents. Living here I suppose you don't really pay it much attention.

There is as much rivalry between the counties, (War of the Roses anyone?), as there is between the countries. Perhaps because we inhabit such an ancient land.

[Ignoramus]

I am split on the issue. The term "British" has no foundation. And I can see why the Scots would prefer independence; everytime the word British is used is almost always interpretated as meaning English. However, it would be sad if Scotland didn't have a monarchy. I wouldn't mind Scotland breaking away when Charles becomes king.

[Duke Malcolm]

Does such distain for England and the English actually rise to the level of racial hatred among non-English citizens, as InsaneApache suggests? My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry.

I must say that "Angle" is not a word for someone from England. Angle are old German folks, who inhabite various parts of Britain, including Southern and lowland Scotland...

[macsen rufus]

"Britishness" does exist in a biological sense, but not a cultural sense. The difference between England/Wales/Scotland is largely social and cultural, as recent genetic studies have found the populations to be virtually indistinguishable, and the English are largely of Celtic and pre-Celtic stock too, despite all the waves of migrants from mainland Europe. Each new wave - Normans, Vikings, Saxons etc largely just added a top tier to society rather than displacing or transforming the entire population. The history of "nations" is more the story of their rulers and the languages and cultures they bring with them, not their people.

@Kukri:


My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry.

Nah -- it's more a centuries/millenia long history of warfare, oppression, rape, slavery and pillage. We just seem to have a better ability to sweep things under the carpet every now and then and forget our differences in the face of foreign threats. And as IA points out, rivalries between counties can be pretty fierce - I'm sure he'll fill you in on what a wonderful place Lancashire is :clown: Heck, even neighbouring villages can be downright antagonistic. As for accents in England - the town 5 miles west of my village, and the city 5 miles east have quite different accents, both different to the village itself.

There used to be a saying: "(Unacceptable non-PC term for foreigners of slightly tinted hue) begin at Calais", but having said that the English word "Welsh" derives from the Old English for "foreign" ('waelisc'). The Scots call us "sassenachs" which I used to believe meant "southerners" but seems more likely to be derived from "Saxon". You can certainly find true racists in Wales and Scotland - ever been into a pub that goes dead silent as soon as you speak??? By and large most people are friendly and warm, but when there is animosity it's heartfelt and genuine too, and often based on real historical grievances.

On the practicalities of devolution, why shouldn't the Scots be ruled over by a Bavarian Duke? After all, the current royal family is basically Hanoverian :beam:

Trying to extricate the economies and tax etc would be an absolute nightmare, and no telling really whether there is a net subsidy northwards. And would two smaller economies be better off or not than one larger one? Given the wider context of the EU, talk of devolution and independence strikes me as a bit redundant. What we really need is a proper application of subsidiarity wherein local decisions are taken locally, and higher levels of government only take charge on issues that can only be dealt with over a wider area, with as few "layers" of government as possible. This is something England and Wales (and NI) could all benefit from. Government should be as close to the people as possible.

For IrishArmenian: if someone describes himself as an Ulsterman he is usually a loyalist. If he lives in Ulster but is not a loyalist, he'll usually call himself Irish, so the "British and Proud" comment seems quite in keeping. The irony is that most of the loyalists are descended from Scots settlers, and the Scots were originally Irish who had invaded Pictland.... just to give another example of the convoluted history of these islands :beam:

Ultimately, though we're all humans, and citizens of the planet etc and obsessing about national governments and the like is bit of a distraction. I'd be quite happy to see a dissolution of nation states generally in favour of smaller, more human-scale units under the umbrella of the EU.

[Justiciar]

I thought the vast majority of genetic studies have shown the Enlgish to be similar in stock to the French, Dutch, Scots, and Danes moreso than the Welsh and Irish?

[Rank Bajin]

Nice thread. :beam:

While I certainly agree that the English deserve their own referendum on if they want an English parliament, I am most curious where many English people get this idea that they are the great benefactors and that their hard-earned cash is going north of the border to support a Scotland that heavily relies on England to prop her up? :help:

Sorry to break it to everyone, but it can really only be England that is the real subsidy junky. The last Tory Government actually had to admit that the flow of cash could only have been happening in the other direction:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970113/text/70113w07.htm#70113w07.html_sbhd0

The link above shows the parliamentary answer from William Waldegrave - the then Tory Treasury minister - which gives figures of a net flow of cash from Scotland to the UK over the period of £26.7 Billion from the years 1978 to 1996.

They are the true figures of the whole period as they show the real picture when all taxes, revenues and the revenues for Scotland’s natural resources are apportioned fairly. You should check the rest of the UK’s figures (which is namely England’s) over that whole period as it will show that England didn’t have the money to support herself, never mind “subsidise” anybody. ~:shock: :

Also, later on, there was the independent report by the Constitution Unit, of the University College in London, which also confirms the figures in the above link. During 2002, the Constitution Unit did a review of the treasury figures for the previous 20 years. :book:

On their analysis of the government’s own figures Scotland had been in surplus of £1.2 billion per year (from the fiscal years 1980/1981 to 2000/2001) while the UK was in a large deficit.

Indeed, by the authors’ reckoning, over that 20 year period, Scotland had a £24 billion cumulative surplus while the UK had a cumulative deficit of - hold it! - £410 billion. Which really means that England, Wales and Northern were a total of £434 billion in the red, while Scotland was actually in the black.

So where is all this magical English money heading north to support the Scots? Is it really just a figment of English imagination? I know what I think! :yes:

Another thing:

Scotland - which you really need to know - is, in fact, a net exporter of oil, gas, electricity and food.

Scotland also has vast amounts of fresh water (i.e. Loch Ness has more fresh water than all the freshwater lakes and rivers in England combined). Also, due to her small population, Scotland has a great share of these resources per head of the population. Add in the fact, that she also has a very great potential for renewable energy on top of all that. In the scheme of things, for a country, that is really true riches! :beam:

In direct comparison to Scotland, England is, in fact, a net importer of oil (from internationally-recognised Scottish waters), gas (ditto and soon to be from Norway), electricity (Scotland produces more than she needs), water (Wales - much of the west of England relies on it) and food (from many sources around the globe).

England - if we are being very truthful - is so very overpopulated that she cannot even sustain her own growing population through her own resources. Half of all her food has to be imported which makes England one of the biggest importers of food per capita in the world. :no:

Scotland, for example, has actually around a quarter of the UK’s cattle production and it is a similar tale for other agricultural produce but she has only 8.6% of the UK’s total population. Add in the oil, gas, electricity and water, Scotland has more natural resources than she even requires.

In case the implication is lost on you all it is this - Scotland can easily exist upon her own resources but England cannot.

The question you now really should ask yourself is who is really the richer country and who really needs who then? :inquisitive:

:Edit: For some spelling and grammer mistakes.

[Pannonian]

Nice thread. :beam:

While I certainly agree that the English deserve their own referendum on if they want an English parliament, I am most curious where many English people get this idea that they are the great benefactors where their hard-earned cash is going north of the border and that Scotland heavily relies on England to prop her up? :help:

The question you now really should ask yourself is who is really the richer country and who really needs who then? :inquisitive:
I'm a Londoner, so I can safely say my local region is a net contributor. Independence for the south-east, and the rest of the UK can look for their subsidies from elsewhere.

[King Henry V]

Another thing:

Scotland - which you really need to know - is, in fact, a net exporter of oil, gas, electricity and food.

Scotland also has vast amounts of fresh water (i.e. Loch Ness has more fresh water than all the freshwater lakes and rivers in England combined). Also, due to her small population, Scotland has a great share of these resources per head of the population. Add in the fact, that she also has a very great potential for renewable energy on top of all that. In the scheme of things, for a country, that is really true riches! :beam:

In direct comparison to Scotland, England is, in fact, a net importer of oil (from internationally-recognised Scottish waters), gas (ditto and soon to be from Norway), electricity (Scotland produces more than she needs), water (Wales - much of the west of England relies on it) and food (from many sources around the globe).

England - if we are being very truthful - is so very overpopulated that she cannot even sustain her own growing population through her own resources. Half of all her food has to be imported which makes England one of the biggest importers of food per capita in the world. :no:

Scotland, for example, has actually around a quarter of the UK’s cattle production and it is a similar tale for other agricultural produce but she has only 8.6% of the UK’s total population. Add in the oil, gas, electricity and water, Scotland has more natural resources than she even requires.

In case the implication is lost on you all it is this - Scotland can easily exist upon her own resources but England cannot.

The question you now really should ask yourself is who is really the richer country and who really needs who then? :inquisitive:
I think you'll find that things such as food and natural ressources do not have a primary importance for first world countries whose economies are mainly based on the services industry.

[GoreBag]

Scotland can hardly expect not to change the economy's setup after secession.

[BDC]

I think you'll find that things such as food and natural ressources do not have a primary importance for first world countries whose economies are mainly based on the services industry.
Yes. Resources are cheap (and let's face it, they run out quickly enough).

Besides England's agriculture could easily shift up several gears - not that it needs to happen. Hence why so much is imported.

Water is an issue, but Wales isn't going anywhere. Besides, not like much major damming is going to happen in the Highlands is it? More useful as a tourist attraction.

[Kagemusha]

I hope the best of luck to Scots if they will get independent. I dont see any reason why they couldnt manage quite well.No external threats around you,some resources and educated population. I think that they could thrive as well as any other small country.:smash:

[Samurai Waki]

I hope the best of luck to Scots if they will get independent. I dont see any reason why they couldnt manage quite well.No external threats around you,some resources and educated population. I think that they could thrive as well as any other small country.:smash:

I agree. If the Scots want to give Independence a go, I'm sure they could go a lot of the Way Ireland has. Which has a very robust economy, centering around tourism, and Hi-Tech Industries.

[Rank Bajin]

I'm a Londoner, so I can safely say my local region is a net contributor. Independence for the south-east, and the rest of the UK can look for their subsidies from elsewhere.

In a way I am in agreement with you, as the South-East economy is certainly shown to be the biggest in the UK, but you do realise that much of London's economy - in fact - relies on the rest of the UK to give her all those nice GDP figures that the Government say is generated by London?

What I really mean is that the rest of what the UK contributes to the UK economy is really disguised by the way that all the tax returns are shown. This is due to the fact that most businesses in the UK (International and UK-wide companies) all have their registered offices primarily in the South-East of England.

Due to this, all these companies pay all their corporation tax which they have earned from all over the UK at that head office. Even though much of these businesses draw their incomes from all four countries in the UK all these taxes are only attributed to London. Thus, all those Government-released London GDP figures are, in fact, quite bogus as much of London's GDP actually belongs to the rest of the UK but this is never been alluded to being the case. :furious3:

The reality is that London's GDP is actually "sexed up" and is really not the true position of the city. :yes:

To make my case, here is a very good article by the Scotland on Sunday that you - and all the other UK posters here as it is most relevant to all - should at least read. I must admit that it is a little dated, but the thrust is no less relevant as it still applies today:

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/myth1995.html

[Pannonian]

In a way I am in agreement with you, as the South-East economy is certainly shown to be the biggest in the UK, but you do realise that much of London's economy - in fact - relies on the rest of the UK to give her all those nice GDP figures that the Government say is generated by London?

What I really mean is that the rest of what the UK contributes to the UK economy is really disguised by the way that all the tax returns are shown. This is due to the fact that most businesses in the UK (International and UK-wide companies) all have their registered offices primarily in the South-East of England.

Due to this, all these companies pay all their corporation tax which they have earned from all over the UK at that head office. Even though much of these businesses draw their incomes from all four countries in the UK all these taxes are only attributed to London. Thus, all those Government-released London GDP figures are, in fact, quite bogus as much of London's GDP actually belongs to the rest of the UK but this is never been alluded to being the case. :furious3:

The reality is that London's GDP is actually "sexed up" and is really not the true position of the city. :yes:

To make my case, here is a very good article by the Scotland on Sunday that you - and all the other UK posters here as it is most relevant to all - should at least read. I must admit that it is a little dated, but the thrust is no less relevant as it still applies today:

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/myth1995.html
It's funny how the integrated economy is invoked when examining the case of south-east England, but Scotland independent of Sassenach evils escapes such scrutiny. Does Scotland have such an independent economy that it is so different to the south-east?

The basic questions are as follows:

How much tax money is generated by individuals or companies based in London? How much is spent in London? How much tax money is generated by individuals or companies based in Scotland? How much is spent in Scotland?

South-east England is within the EU, and before that, the EEC. There are no trade barriers within that economic community, so where the companies are based matters not a whit. From its total tax income, the UK contributes a certain amount for various EU projects. Beyond that, an independent state is under no obligation to help another independent state, nor can it rely on others to help it.

So your saying that London's economy is linked to the rest of the UK is actually irrelevant, as it is probably equally linked to the rest of the EU. What is relevant is how much tax income it generates for the government, and how much it receives back. Pray, what is Scotland's net contribution to government finances? If you add oil money to their income, is it more than London's net contribution? What if you measure by head of population?

[Dave1984]

There used to be a saying: "(Unacceptable non-PC term for foreigners of slightly tinted hue) begin at Calais", but having said that the English word "Welsh" derives from the Old English for "foreign" ('waelisc'). The Scots call us "sassenachs" which I used to believe meant "southerners" but seems more likely to be derived from "Saxon". You can certainly find true racists in Wales and Scotland - ever been into a pub that goes dead silent as soon as you speak??? By and large most people are friendly and warm, but when there is animosity it's heartfelt and genuine too, and often based on real historical grievances.




I have to say that I find the animosity to be far more on the part of the "aggrieved" parties, the Welsh and the Scots, than on the part of the English.

I've lived in all three countries, in several towns and cities across this island
and found that in Scotland and Wales there is always this undercurrent of not so much anti-Englishness , but certainly a sense of almost needing to compete with the English. In Wales especially, I always used to be amazed at how often the local news mentioned something to do with Wales, following it immediately with a comparison with England, as if there's this constant need to try and measure up, this constant feeling of being the underdog.

All the Welshmen I knew exhibited the same thing around me and it seemed that England and competing with England was a terribly major issue with them.
I always used to ask them if they realised that this big rivalry they always went on about was very little thought of in England itself- in fact, the vast majority of Englishmen barely ever thought of Wales, or Scotland.

Of course there were always scare stories floating around- that two policemen had beaten up a guy asking for directions because he was English, that kind of thing, but I never saw anything of the sort; perhaps that's because I'm a fairly burly chap- I don't know.

Anyway, all the countries in the UK have done well off each other, and should the Union break it'd be an incredible loss for England, but much more for Scotland.



And all the villages in the area I come from had their own distinctive accents and words (and in one memorable case, inbreeding). I say had, because now they're losing them and it's all becoming replaced with this awful generic estuary English, and that's a real shame.


*To bring the tone down a little further, I always found Welsh girls to be the most "giving", shall we say.

[Pannonian]

And all the villages in the area I come from had their own distinctive accents and words (and in one memorable case, inbreeding).

Can you elaborate, without names? It sounds intriguing.

[InsaneApache]

I bet it's Blackburn. They got six toes on each foot up there! :laugh4:

Apologies to Divine Wind :clown:

[Dave1984]

I bet it's Blackburn. They got six toes on each foot up there! :laugh4:



Nup, I'm a south Northants/ north Oxfordshire lad!


Can you elaborate, without names? It sounds intriguing.

It was basically a family in the next village along from us where the father had had "relations" with his firstborn daughter, several times, and spawned three kids as a result. The father had been removed and locked away somewhere because of this. The kids were grown up by the time I was around, and they were the kindest, most loyal people you could hope to meet. Sadly they were all also pretty mentally retarded and suffered from alot of health problems and of course the standard inbred issue of being absolutely pig ugly.

Quite a sad story.

[IrishArmenian]

"
For IrishArmenian: if someone describes himself as an Ulsterman he is usually a loyalist. If he lives in Ulster but is not a loyalist, he'll usually call himself Irish, so the "British and Proud" comment seems quite in keeping. The irony is that most of the loyalists are descended from Scots settlers, and the Scots were originally Irish who had invaded Pictland.... just to give another example of the convoluted history of these islands :beam:

Oh yeah, definitely loyalist.. he's a Proddy. (No offense)
I was under the assumption that the average Englishman was a little bit Celtic but mostly Scandanavian, Upper-Class had some Norman, etc.
Question: What people are the Geordies descended from. They seem mostly Celtic. I also find the early Welsh names to be quite different than modern one that sound somewhat French influenced (Jenkins, Gabbidon, Jones).
EDIT
D Wilson, isn't Wilson an Anglcized Norse-Scottish last name?

[Dave1984]

Oh yeah, definitely loyalist.. he's a Proddy. (No offense)
I was under the assumption that the average Englishman was a little bit Celtic but mostly Scandanavian, Upper-Class had some Norman, etc.
Question: What people are the Geordies descended from. They seem mostly Celtic. I also find the early Welsh names to be quite different than modern one that sound somewhat French influenced (Jenkins, Gabbidon, Jones).
EDIT
D Wilson, isn't Wilson an Anglcized Norse-Scottish last name?


I believe it is. Certainly there's a Wilson clan tartan and the name follows the old Norse surname structure.

Sadly it doesn't shed any light on my roots because it's the name of the family my Grandfather was adopted into about half a century ago.

And as a historian it infuriates me that I can only trace my family back to just before the war!

[macsen rufus]

@IrishArmenian:


I also find the early Welsh names to be quite different than modern one that sound somewhat French influenced

Yes, you're quite right. I can't remember when the changes occured, but one of the English kings (Henry VIII possibly) decreed that Welsh names were too barbaric and the English naming system was imposed upon the Welsh. Originally Welshmen's names were a list of ancestors ie Gruffydd ap Llewellyn ap Ieuan ap Llewellyn etc etc etc ('ap' being 'son of' in the way 'Mac' and 'Mc' are in Irish and Scottish names.) Without a tradition of using surnames like the English there were some strange results from the "rules" imposed, and many people were simply given the surname of their feudal overlords without any regard for their own genetic lineage. Hence there are so many Joneses -- despite the fact that the Welsh language doesn't use the letter J at all! So not only are the names now a breach with Welsh custom, they have also been Anglicised as well (Gruffydd => Griffiths etc).

It's all a part of the long and tormented history of English oppression of the Welsh.

[Dave1984]

@IrishArmenian:



Yes, you're quite right. I can't remember when the changes occured, but one of the English kings (Henry VIII possibly) decreed that Welsh names were too barbaric and the English naming system was imposed upon the Welsh.


Not entirely. Henry passed the Laws in Wales acts which effectively unified England and Wales, bringing previously occupied Welshmen into social equality with their English counterparts. The effect this had on the Welsh language was that it meant all Welsh governance was now to be done in English, as part of the union, and so the language fell into something of a decline.

Bear in mind that Henry was of a Welsh family and had a tendency to think romantically of his Welsh roots.

[Justiciar]

Without a tradition of using surnames like the English there were some strange results from the "rules" imposed, and many people were simply given the surname of their feudal overlords without any regard for their own genetic lineage.
The English used patronyms too once upon a time, and may well have done right up to the 13th century, though don't hold me to that. Bleedin' Frenchies, comin' over 'ere an' givin' us names! Should be ashamed of themselves! ~:mad

[IrishArmenian]

I believe it is. Certainly there's a Wilson clan tartan and the name follows the old Norse surname structure.

Sadly it doesn't shed any light on my roots because it's the name of the family my Grandfather was adopted into about half a century ago.

And as a historian it infuriates me that I can only trace my family back to just before the war!
Eh, I can kind of only do the same with my father's side. I think I am aware of everything past 1920, so just after the first great war. On the other hand though, I can trace back my mother's line to the 600's and most sources say that Vartan was descended from Far Eastern Horse riders (Mongols?)
The British Isles get very messy when it comes down to geneology. I'll bet 99 if not 100% of the population are mix breeds, and have you ever heard someone say "it's a Pictish name"?